The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Replies: 15   Last Post: Jan 9, 2014 9:31 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Mitchell Holman

Posts: 17
Registered: 1/4/14
Re: ONE proof of God. Which One?
Posted: Jan 7, 2014 9:29 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote in

> On 1/7/2014 7:33 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote in

>>> On 1/6/2014 8:07 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:42:56 -0600, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote
>>>> in alt.atheism:

>>>>> On 1/6/2014 7:40 PM, kamerm wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2014 7:26 AM, kamerm wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2014 6:33 AM, kamerm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ...

>>>>>>>>>>> Through analytical reasoning it has been determined that both
>>>>>>>>>>> belief and disbelief are always incorrect even when their
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions are true. Both belief and disbelief form definite
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions on the basis of less than complete proof, so both
>>>>>>>>>>> of them are essentially liars.
>>>>>>>>>>> The above statement proves itself true entirely on the basis
>>>>>>>>>>> of the meaning of its words. The only truth that can be
>>>>>>>>>>> completely relied upon is truth that can be completely
>>>>>>>>>>> verified entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words.

>>>>>>>>>> dynamical systems such as living humans by definition
>>>>>>>>>> (hide) far mor information than they display.
>>>>>>>>>> If you are to act effectively in a world governed by dynamical
>>>>>>>>>> systems, as a dynamical system, and as part of dynamical
>>>>>>>>>> systems, then you must always act on the basis of knowledge
>>>>>>>>>> insufficient for certainty, or not act as all. However, if you
>>>>>>>>>> continually fail to act, then you surrender both your
>>>>>>>>>> capabilities as a dynamical system, and once misfortune comes
>>>>>>>>>> your way and you fail to act, your status as a dynamical
>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>> Note that this discusses action only as overt motion.

>>>>>>>>>> considerations relevant to the causes/non-causes of the overt
>>>>>>>>>> action per a.z & a.p.t are not intended in this statement.
>>>>>>>>>> -k

>>>>>>>>> I agree with everything you said.
>>>>>>>>> My purpose was to show that it is logically incorrect for

>>>>>>>>> to be so damn sure of themselves. Both atheists and believers
>>>>>>>>> commit this humongous error.
>>>>>>>>> My point was to show that it is an error in an absolute sense.
>>>>>>>>> In a sense independent of a point of view, or a fallible human
>>>>>>>>> opinion. My position on this matter completely proves itself
>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words.
>>>>>>>>> Only positions that completely prove themselves true entirely

>>>>>>>>> the basis of the meaning of their words can be completely
>>>>>>>>> upon.
>>>>>>>> then Truth is reduced to math, and more flexible words like
>>>>>>>> "useful", "timely", "appropriate", "suitable", "convenient"
>>>>>>>> become the standard outside of formal language. not a bad (or
>>>>>>>> unique) notion, really :-)
>>>>>>>> in what way to you find notions of Deity/s useful or
>>>>>>>> inappropriate?, and if "useful",
>>>>>>>> => how are notions of Deity/s "appropriate" for discussions with
>>>>>>>> atheists in alt.atheism (who have apriori already declared
>>>>>>>> Deity/s unsuitable), or folks considering Truth (though
>>>>>>>> "Validity" is more precise) in formal systems in alt.logic or
>>>>>>>> alt.math?
>>>>>>>> Note that for my own part, following convention, i prefer
>>>>>>>> reserving "Valid" for formal language, "Truth" for well
>>>>>>>> demonstrated mappings of physical phenomena onto formal systems,
>>>>>>>> and "Useful" and its peers for all else. However, this being
>>>>>>>> alt.*, am happy to follow suit with anyone who gives some
>>>>>>>> indication of how their terms are being used at the moment ;-D -


>>>>>>> In order to mathematically optimize existence the basis must be
>>>>>>> truth.

>>>>>> by definition
>>>>>> but we can make plenty good progress by successive approximations,
>>>>>> while we're waiting for the ultimate truth and accompanying
>>>>>> theorems and protocols on how to parse and apply it to show up ;-)
>>>>>> -k

>>>>> All all of reality is entirely different that most people are
>>>> You've repeated that several times. As stated it's meaningless.
>> ?
>>> Proof of God is available from carefully studying the cause-and-

>>> relationships in reality.
>> Such as........?

> All things that are written off as mere coincidence.

How many virgins were sacrificed because
one died right before the rains came?

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.